Meta must respond by 10 August, with a hearing on 24 August, as Orrick signals he may reconsider if new evidence on AI's role emerges #
Four Meta employees on company work visas are at the heart of a lawsuit that claims the tech giant used artificial intelligence to decide who lost their jobs. A federal judge has refused to halt their layoffs. But he ruled that their risk of being forced out of the United States is, in his words, more than speculation. He has ordered Meta to explain by 23 July why the four were picked.
The four are part of a group of 26 workers suing Meta over an April 2026 round of about 8,000 job cuts. Meta rejects the central claim outright. It says the decisions were made by people, not AI.
What the Lawsuit Claims #
The 26 plaintiffs filed anonymously, as Doe 1 to Doe 26. All of them, they say, were on protected medical or family leave, or had asked for a disability accommodation, when Meta drew up its layoff list. According to the complaint, the company used a set of internal AI systems to score and rank staff for the cuts, rather than leaving the calls to managers alone. The plaintiffs say it was part of a drive to remake the company as an 'AI-first' business.
The lawsuit argues the design of those systems worked against anyone who had stepped away from work. Time on leave shows up in the data as reduced output. So the scoring quietly marked them down, the plaintiffs say, in the way the post below sets out.
Those nationalities are not public. The workers come from six US states and Washington, DC, and filed under false names. Nothing in the case ties it to any one country. The claims rest on several laws, among them the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Meta denies the allegations flatly. A spokesperson said workforce decisions 'were and are made by people, not AI,' and called the claims meritless. At the hearing, a lawyer for the company told the court there was no evidence AI drove the layoffs.
The Judge's Ruling #
On 17 July, Judge William Orrick, sitting in Oakland, California, refused to grant the emergency order the workers wanted. He found that most of the harms they described could be put right later. Lost health cover and share awards, he said, can be repaid through money or damages if the workers win in arbitration.
The immigration question was the exception, and it is the part that keeps the case alive. The relevant pages of his order are shared in the filing below.
For the four visa holders, Orrick said the risk was different. They face being forced to leave the United States if they cannot find a new sponsor within about 60 days. He judged that threat to be more than mere speculation. Even so, he stopped short of ruling in their favour. He first wants to know how and why they were chosen, and gave Meta until 23 July to explain. Meta must respond in full to the request for a longer injunction by 10 August, with a hearing set for 24 August. Orrick also signalled he could change his mind if new evidence shows how AI was used in the cuts. Lawyers following the case call it the first real US test of whether AI-driven layoffs can breach discrimination law. It lands weeks after a court let a comparable case against the software firm Workday proceed, a sign that companies deploying automated hiring and firing tools may face a growing wave of similar claims.
© Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.